This blog aims at bringing out the past glory of India, Hinduism and its forgotten values and wisdom. This is not copyrighted so as to reach genuine seekers of these information. Its my prayer that only genuine seekers - and not vandals & plagiarists - come to this site.

29 comments:

Balaji
said...

Madam, You are indeed an ocean of knowledge, your works would definitely be hailed in future. But I have a few doubts:- If Thiruvalluvar was a devotee of Sri Rama, then why did'nt he sport a Thirunaama on his forehead? And even confusing is why was'nt this understood by Tamil Shaivites who proudly claim that the philosophy in Thirukkural was Shaiva Siddhanta and it has also inpired Thirumurai. They hail Thiruvalluvar as a Shaivite poet like Gnanasambandar or Thirumoolar.I was impressed to see the reference to Vaamana avatar:- "ulagu alandhaan". But the other reference you had shown, that to Rama, where he showed mercy to his enemy, is I doubt, could have even been to Murugan or Subhramanya, who too used the "Indru poi naalai vaa" to Soorapadman.Anyway, your works are great, and I hope you many be the next AMR.Why don't you create a website and put all these treasures in them, like how Stephen Knapp (Sri Nandanandana Dasa) had done? And may I know (if you don't mistake) what is your profession/qualification. I ask this because you seem to use so many references. How did you learn all of them? I hope if you tell, would be useful to me, as I too have a similar vision of Dharma as that of yours!

That the kural 773 refers to Rama is told by none other than Parimelazhagar (13th century) in his Urai. For Kural, Parimelazhagar's is a wonderful urai. It gives a wonderful idea of the mind of Thiruvalluvar.

We have to read Thirukkural with the aid of olden commentaries such as Parimelazhagar, and must not depend on present day writers, you can guess the one among others, whom i mean.

In those days their aim was to bring out what Thiruvlluvar would have meant, and not to further one's own theories and opinions. I dont depend on todays' commentators for any of the texts I quote. Dr U.ve.Sa has done yomen service by bringing out old commentaries as found in palm leaves. I go by those commentaries only for sangam texts.

About your query on Shaiva or vaishnava....

Though the siddhanthas of both shaivism and vaishnavism are treated differently, they have sprung from the same sruthi source.And the variation as such was recognized only Post- Ramanuja. In Thiruvalluvar's time , which I see as sometime before 5000 years ago (before Mahabhartatha), the sidhantha was same (un-differentiated as shivite or vasihnavite)- but ishta devathas were different for different people.

In those times, when Tholkappiyam was not in force, the rules of writing verses were different - particularly for the beginning letters as mentioned in Choodamani nigandu. Thirukkural does not obey the rule of Tholkappaiyam for starting the verse. (this is one of the reasons why the Kural can be considered as older than Tholkappiyam or preceded the times when Tholkappaiya- rules got into shape.) It follows the much ancient practice of 'Naama nakshthra'- This is the original and oldest practice whereby the writer not only indicates his god but also his own name in the verses. I guess somewhere in the first or last 10 kurals, Thiruvalluvar must have indicated his name too!

But he was born in Valluva-k-kudi- family of weavers.Mamoolanaar in one of his verses had said that he must be considered as Devan and the one who calls him as 'Valluvan' is a ‘pEdhai’ (fool)!!

About your suggestion on creating web site etc..

To tell you the fact I dont know what to do. I used to be talking all these things all these days. But I dont get to see many people who are interested in knowing these things. When i came to know about blogging, I decided to record my thoughts and views in this, so that those interested in these topics will land up here and read them, and interact on them - as you are doing:)

This is where i stand at present. Thats all. People tell me that i must copyright etc. I am right at the moment clueless about what to do about this or should I do anything about this. What i am doing is vidhya daanam. This is very very less than what our Rishis and vediks of olden days had done by giving us the wisdom but not claiming it as theirs. But we remember them for what they had given us - every person is born with a ruNam (kadan or debt) to rishis for what they had given us.

I want to get only those readers who have such integrity to recognize my name while using or reproducing the contents of this blog.

At the same time I also recognize the fact that I am not very well versed as Stephan Knapp or Sri AMR or others.

About my qualification.It is not an exaggeration to say that the interests in these things were in born. Right from the time I remember, i have been watching skies, stars and planets, asking questions on them, on life and dharma and pursuing these questions endlessly.

Added to this are the experiences in my life - and the opportunity to know the experiences in others' life through astrology.

Announcing a new year from the month of 'Thy' would be a bad decision. But you have stated that Thiruvalluvar as a devotee of Rama. First try to understand that Indu valley Dravidians are Shaivites. All the Siddhars(Cittars) are Saivites. Great King Ravana was a devotee of Siva(Civa), the war between Rama vs Ravana is Aryan vs Dravidian is Shaivism vs Vaishnavism.

I really feel sorry for you for the 'pedamai' for saying that the war between Rama vs Ravana is Aryan vs Dravidian-is Shaivism vs Vaishnavism.

I wish you first acquaint yourself about what is Aryan, Dravidian and the period of Shaivism vs Vaishnavism and Ramayana also!! You also need to get updated about the recent findings on Indus Vally etc and also about Tamil's past. Study Pathirru-paatu also and Kaakaai padiniyaar's padikam for 6-m patthu on Aadu kOt paatu-cheraladhan that reveals the aadu - varudai conenction to Tamil's New year on Chithirai / Meda raasi.

Better come out of the Dravida - maayai. Thamizhan is not a Dravidan.If all those sanga-p-pulavargal + Thirvalluvar get to hear this Dravida slang to Tamils, they will damn all of you!

If you read the other posts in this blog you will know how and why Thamizhan is not a dravidan. Or else wait for my series on 'YengE Dravidan' - to be started soon.

Reg Rama as Thirvalluvar's ishta devatha, I have given the reasons. Read other posts on Thirukkural to know the mention of Vamana and Rama in Thirukkural and Thirukkural as the Tamil version of Vedas. This is not my version. This is how it has been written by commentators 1000 years ago. I pity all those like you who are misled in the past few decades into thinking what is not true of Thirukkural. Why blame people? If they search for themselves from olden writers like Pairmelazhagar and Nemi naathan, they will know the import of Thirukkural as has come down for ages. The Kazhaga- padhippaLargal and Kazhaga writers have distorted enough. The loss is for the people!!!

I totally regret giving a hit to this stupid page, which totally smells of aryan supremacy.

I had to leave this comment here, just to let you (Jayashree) know that thiruvallur was never a devotee of rama, it sounds so stupid just like if i said that lord murugan was also born to rama and sita.

When i type this comment i know this comment will not be published in your blog, because that's what you aryans do, hiding the truth from the world. But i had made my point well and to the right eyes(you).

Read the link given below on the deity (Rama) that Thikruvalluvar worshiped.

It is based on the rules of literature on hinting at the personal God in the first first line of the work that poets did in those days. Based on the aphorisms given, we can even deduce the personal God mentioned in a hidden way by Kambar in Kamba Ramayanam. The aphorisms cane be applied to any work of yore.

Firstly, I don't see why moderation is set to such a blog. However, I'm not going to jump to any conclusions. If this isn't posted, then I will, and that conclusion is fear of being wrong.

Firstly, the tradition of thiruvâLuvàr is not of importance. Whether He incorporated vaidhigàm in His work or not, I don't see much as a point of debate from my view. It is a given that Dravidians and Aryans would've been influenced by each other. However, the fact that He incorporates âRàm, poruL, inbàm and veeDú in His Work, proves that He was sent to re-give the naanmâRay, which existed before the Sanskrit vehdhaas, shows that He leaned towards Tamil Culture. As far as the Aryan debate goes, there is a possibility that iraamàn was Aryan, however, kâNNàn was Dravidian. According to the history of dheepaavâli goes, iraamàn was more central India -- one can only wonder if, 8000 years ago, the thâmiZH would've still been ruling that area.

My focus is on which philosophy He belonged to. Many claim He belongs to their. The most ridiculous is that of the Atheists as, by the first Chapter Title, they are refutes. The Jains did not support agriculture and, did not have hair. Buddhists take the pitaka tree to be their idea of the highest of existences, but, then they believe at the same time, that it is not existent. ThiruvaLuvar makes no reference to their core beliefs, and at the same time, supports war-fare and extremeties. As far as Christianity goes, thirukkuRàL is 3BC, the bible is 2nd Century AD.

I think, the one who has about the strongest claim, are the vainàvàr. However, mere reference to an âvadhaar of maal isn't enough. In 610, thiruvâLuvàr does not mention God, but, simply, 'the one'. If His intention was to show that maal was the God He was referring to, will this not be in kâDàvuL vaaZHthú? Plus, mentions of indiràn, kalaymâgàL, thirúmâgàL, etc., are also mentioned -- what prevents one from then saying that thiruvâLuvàr was referring to one of them? vainàvàm believes that maal is moolà prakrithi, and he evolves into the world and that vaiguNDàm is the highest Abode that one can attain, however, kuRàL 3 says that the Feet of the Lord is above all worlds, which will include vaiguNDàm, which is a world. thiruvâLuvàr does not say that God becomes the world. kuRàL 10 tells us that God is beyond birth as, only one who is unaffected by the misery of birth can give freedom from it yet, maal takes birth and, is does classified along the same type of intelligence which thiruvâLuvàr address, and that is, souls.

// If this isn't posted, then I will, and that conclusion is fear of being wrong. //

Your comment was in spam folder. You will know better how it went to the spam folder. Other than this, there is nothing worthy to answer to any point written in your comment. But what is seen is that you need to read more on Thiruvalluvar and not just parrot what the Dravidian chauvinists are writing.

A very scholarly scholarly response, I must say. Why is it that it is always South Indian greats who are taken and 'Aryanised' but, attempts won't be taken to take an Aryan personality and forcefully try to prove Dravidian traits. Interpretation is such that if you desperately wish to prove your ideas, you'll go looking for it and you will find something insignificant and try your best to give it some significance to back your idea. Why is it that there isn't an iconic statue of thiruvâLLuvàr anywhere in the North, yet, He announces proudly the South Indian coastline. The kuDumbi is unmistakebly Dravidian. You're the one trying to disprove what has already been clarified -- I'm just supporting. What is is what is. I don't know what's the general idea in India or what the greater Dravidian world is saying. What I say is my understandsing derived from personal studies. I thought this blog was about education and debate -- not childish accusations. I have no idea how my comment ended-up in spam; I didsn't even know there was provision for spam. Why I saids what is said is because you chose settings that gives you the power to choose what goes and what doesn't and, in my book, and many other, that's being bias. But, anyway, that isn't what this blog is about. What did I say in my comment which is 'chauvanist'? Squak:-)

> The above comment of yours again appeared in spam folder. Once I chanced to click the spam folder and found that some mails are there. From then onwards, I am checking the spam folder regularly to see if any comment worthy of publishing is there.

> I am not computer savvy and didn't do anything all these years to change the blogger settings.

> I cant even change or manipulate the comments - I think any blogger would know this. I can only approve or reject a comment. For eg, I saw another comment in spam which sounded strange and so deleted it.

> The accusations - Let me remind that I reacted to an accusation that I may not post your comment.

> The issue of Chauvinism is about the repeated mention of "Dravidian". What is Dravidian? Lot of researches have come up particularly in genetics showing that there is nothing Dravidian. I have written umpteen times in this blog about it and am running a separate blog in Tamil on that topic alone. Inspite of me giving links to read them all, if people don't read them and write the same stuff again and again, I think that is time to call a stop to it. By saying this I might sound arrogant, but I can't help it. I am keen on spending my time on writing clarification for the already written info or write new info rather than spending time on justifications which can anyway be known if one reads my Tamil blogs. Hope I conveyed.

If mentioning Dravidian is chauvanist, is it not chauvanist to mention Vedic? The fact is, by lifestyle alone, there shows a difference in Cultures between North India, who represent the Aryans or North Indian Ancestors (NIA) and South Indians who represent the Dravidians. It is concluded that the culture of the inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilisation is peculiar to South Indians thus, the term Dravidian was used. Honestly, I prefer the term Ancient Tamils. But, for reference, use Dravidian. Is it not strange that in current day North India there is no or very little Dravidian people who are indegenous to the North, however, the are strong communities of Dravidians indigenous to Pakistan? Furthermore, even in the DNA of those inhabiting the area around the Indus Valley today, there is closer similarity to South Indians than North Indians. All these are scientific and archaeological findings -- not fairy tales pulled out of a top hat. It cannot be termed as chauvanist if that is what is. The style of worship, that is, the use of flower, water and incense, found in the Indus Valley screams South Indian. This is distinct from fire-alter worship, which is very much Aryan, introduced from Iranian ancestry, especially, horse sacrifice. And yes, I know and have read-up about all the various ideas and objection to the Dravidian and Aryan classifications and the Aryan invasion theory. I agree, whilst there is no signs of violent entry into India, there was definitely a movement of one or more races, which can be termed North Indian Ancestors into India, which was then, populated by Tamils. You can either spend a life-town arguing this or take it as 'so-what?' and get on with life.

But, it seems all of your attention just went to my mention that thiruvaLLuvàr used the naanmaRay tradition of âRàm, poruL, inbàm and veeDú -- Tamil literature has many places which refer to the once existent naanmaRay, referring to it as 'naanmaRay' or 'naalvehdham'. How can this be chauvanist when, bottom line is, He is Tamil and thirukkuRàL is a Tamil work? That's like calling me chauvanist for saying that Vedaviyaasa was Sanskrit/Aryan/Vedic.

In doing so, you completely missed my main arguement -- I said, so what if thiruvaLLuvàr embraced vaidigà traditions; my focus is more on which philosophy He embraced, which, by explanation which I gave, was definitetly not Christianity, Atheism, Buddhism, Jainisim or Vainavam. You can't term this Dravidian chauvanist as it does not refer to a tradition or culture but a philosophy, which can incorporate many traditions and can be incorporated into traditions.

BTW, your interpretation of saanDRohr is logically flawed. If you say that this refers to only, Aryans, it will mean that all noble people are Aryan and all Aryans are noble people. Saying that there could not be any noble Tamil people or people of other cultures or races is what you call a racist, culture-bias and chauvanist.

Btw, to respond to the title, I agree. Karunanidhi should stay in politics and not tamper with history, religion or culture. He is suggesting thiruvaLLuvar aaNDa based on the misinterpretation that thirukkuRàL is purely secular and that thiruvaLLuvar meant 'pagalvan' when He wrote 'pagavan' -- lame. On the other hand, I disagree that Tamils could not have come-up with the yoogam-system -- both math and alphabets, which thiruvaLLuvar emphasises the study of, runs deep into Tamil History. If they understood penance before the NIA came into India, what for language and math? Whilst I'm not anti-Aryan, I get sick of suggestions being made which infer that Tamils were a bunch of primative animals running wild in India before the Aryans came. I'm for what is. If evidence suggests that the Aryans civilised the Tamils, I'll accept. If ideas that the Tamils were well established before the Aryans came in, and what the Aryans taught and adopted was a distortion of what was there, plus ideas which were not distorted, then, those of Aryan descent should not fight it. I will forthrightly state that most Tamils today are lost and follow a distortion of their ancestors Truths. It isn't about being good or bad and neither is it condemning -- it is True. I know many who praise the thirukkuRaL and speak highly of it and proudly hold it in their hand and thereafter go dine on mutton briyani. Yes, I know it is almost impossible to live word by word by thirukkuRaL but, not impossible. Things like sexual emotions towards one's spouce is harder to give-up than eating meat.

•In kuRàL 2, thiruvâLLuvà naayànaar refers to God as 'vaal âRivàn' -- in sithaandhàm, sivàperumaan, in His Special Nature, is Pure Natural Intelligence. •kuRàL 1, God is said to be 'aadhi pâgàvàn' -- in sithaandhàm, God is known as the Efficient Cause of the universe. •kuRàL 3 says that those Who attain His Feet flourish long above all worlds -- sithaandhàm says that the attainment of sivàperumaan's Feet leads one to the transcending of all worlds, which is liberation, where the state of Bliss is an eternal experience. •kuRàL 4 says that God is without likes and dislikes and does not experience misery -- sithaandhàm says that sivàperumaan does not have favourites or dislikes; those Who are Devoted to Him, will reap the benefits He offers and those who are not, don't - like a fire on a cold day, if you want warmth you go to it; staying away, won't get you warmth, either way, the flame remains unaffected by both. •kuRàL 5 speaks of God being unaffected by karma; Those Who attach to His Feet, will also be relieved of the experience of good and bad fruit -- sithaandhàm speaks of iruvinai woppú where, the soul, once it has attain a state where it is in continuous contemplation of sivàperumaan, will not experience the fruit of good and bad deeds that the body is subject to. •kuRàL 6 speaks of the Lord as being beyond the 5 senses -- sithaandhàm says that sivàperumaan destroyed the Forts of the 3 guNaas and controls them thus teaching that He is Naturally Unaffected by bondage, and, in addition, in the stage of yohgàm, control over the senses is gained by contemplating on sivàperumaan. •kuRàL 7 speaks of God being without any worry what-so-ever as, He is God without an equal and those Who attain Him will also not experience any worry -- sithaandhàm teaches that no two entities, even of the same class, are identical therefore, God has no match and is void of any worries and offers the same to Those Who attain His Feet. •kuRàL 8 says that the Feet of God is complete virtue and is free from vices and offers freedom from these vices to all which Attain His Feet -- sithaandhàm says we cannot beat our vices on our own thus, we should admit them to sivàperumaan and worship as only He can relieve us from these vices. •kuRàL 9 speaks of God having 8 Natures -- sithaandhàm lists sivàperumaan's 8 Special Natures: 1. Absolute Freedom, 2. All Pure, 3. Natural Intelligence, 4. Omniscience, 5. Omnipotence, 6. All Blissful, 7. All Merciful and 8. Naturally Untainted by Ignorance. •kuRàL 10 speaks of God being the only salvation from the cycle of birth and death -- sithaandhàm calls sivàperumaan as piRàppil perumaan and adds that only One Who is Eternally Unaffected by birth and death can save us from birth and death - 'pohkkum vâràvum puNàrvumillaa puNiyàneh", say thirú maaNikkavaasàgà naayànaar.

This refutes those who claim the thirukkuRàL to be only secular, and not only that, but proves that thirukkuRàL is saivà sithaandhàm, thereby silencing claims to thirukkuRàL by other religions and philosophies.

The Tamil word kaDavuL does not appear in the Sacred thirukkuaRaL. However, there are many words describing sivaperumaan's Nature in the first chapter of the thirukkuRaL. The word 'yeNguNathaan' (One having 8 Special Natures) which appears in the nineth verse of the first chapter, refers to the Lord's 8 Special Natures. parimehlaZHagar, whose commentary on the Sacred thirukkuRaL is considered to be the best, says that the word 'yeNguNathaan' refers to the eight special natures of sivaperumaan as explained in the saiva aagamaas. The saiva world is indebted to parimehlaZHagar, who, in spite of being vaiNavar, brought out this Truth without bias. The 8 Special Natures of sivaperumaan are as follows:

Chronologically Vishnu sahasranama preceded Saivagama as Vishnu sahasranama was given by Bheeshma on arrow bed (Mahabharatha).

Even Jains talk about 8 siddhis for Jina and claim that Thirukkural refers to Jina!

So we have to see what Thirukkural Devanar meant. Take a look at 27th kural where Parimelazhagar mentions 25 tattwas which are purely Vedic and Vaishnavite philosophy. How would you justify that from saivagama?

To understand all these, one must know what Vedic polytheism says about One Brahman who has many manifestations. The one Brahman is Narayana who is the 'a-kaara' (agaram). The 10th kural speaks of surrendering to His feet which is not told for Shiva or any other God (who are actually manifestations of Brahman). Wherever a description comes on a facet of Brahman which is known by a specific God, Parimelazhagar had mentioned that.

One who is knowledgeable in Vedic religion will not call oneself as saivite or vishnavite or a sakhtha and so on because such a person would know what each of these Gods mean and would find them as manifestations of Brahman which is established as Narayana by Vedas. Thirukkural Devanaar (Thiruvalluvar)is one such knowledgeable person and uses the descriptions aptly. Parimelazahagar points them out aptly.

It will stretch into a book if I start writing a reply to you, as you keep asking one by one. Instead I suggest that you learn what Hinduism says on Godhead and take a re-look at Thirukkural with that learning. Or read my articles on Hinduism in this blogspot.

For Kadavul vaazththu of Thirukkural, the basis is Tholkappiya sutra "Kodinilai, kanthazi" . The details of this can be read in Mu. Raghava iyangar's 'Tholkaappiyap porul agaraathi aaraaycci".

Don't get disturbed that I am asking you to read books by Iyengars. Theirs are standard books. fyi Any evolved Iyengar will have a better grasp of Vedic religion and the meaning of several Gods of Hindu pantheon. I would suggest D.A. Joseph's write ups for beginners. http://www.dajoseph.com/index.html

From the description given on the 8 powers of God, and taking into consideration, athamaasithi, they are completely different. There is no way that parimehlaZHagar could've interpreted these 2 sets of 8 powers to be the same. Athamaasithi is given to souls and applies to the body (maayai). No matter what the religion, it is still sivaperumaan Who bestows these 8 powers as, given His 8 special powers, as listed by parimehlaZHagar, which only saivam ascribes to God, only He has the Power to do so. The body of sivaperumaan is aruL, the bodies of all other intelligent entities (souls) is maayakkaariyam. This is what athamaasithi effects. Why will God need athatmaasithi when She is already present in all and all is present in Him (kaDavuL), from the tiniest particle of matter to all of the universes? Furthermore, athamaasithi is not the final stage. In saivam, this is bestowed in yohgi stage. Truly speaking, all popular sithargaL in saivam, were nyaanies, that is, above the yohgi stage and had access to these 8 sithies if they were destined to be used -- unlike the sithar of other religions, the nyaanies of sithaandham never asked for these powers.

Exactly my point. This goes to show that maal was confined by maayai thus, this will contradict one of the 8 powers, namely, thanvayathanaadhal - Absolute Freedom, which God is in possession of. As I said, a soul is bestowed athamaasithi. maal is a soul. History also supports that he did not maintain the states he received. In saivam, the naayanmaar are not praised for attaining liberation but, maintaining the state of performing sivathoNDu thus we have "thiruthoNDar" thogai (thillayvaaZH andhaNar) by thiru sundharamoorthi naayanaar. As kaNNan, maal experienced thathvamasi and possessed athamaasithi. As iraaman, he clearly did not possess this state nor did he athamaasithi. In fact, the history indicates that iraavaNan possessed these powers and so too did aNumaan. Furthermore, Who gave dhasarath liberation?

//Chronologically Vishnu sahasranama preceded Saivagama as Vishnu sahasranama was given by Bheeshma on arrow bed (Mahabharatha).//

In saivam, with bringing the universe into its gross form for the first time, sivaperumaan assumed the Form of sadhaasivamoorthi. Whilst the 4 outward-facing heads recite the naanmaRai (thamiZHvehdhaa), eesaana mugam recites the sivaagamaas. Saivaagamaas are both in Tamil and sanskrit and compliment each other however, the Tamil sivaagamaa, which is considered to be thirumandhiram, preceded the sanskrit. Tradition ascribes the age 6000BC to 3000BC for the thirumandhiram. The reason given for thirumoolar remaining here was that the thamiZHvehdham were not being adhered to. At this point in time, there was no Sanskrit Vedas

//Even Jains talk about 8 siddhis for Jina and claim that Thirukkural refers to Jina!//

thirukkuRaL praises the agriculturalist thus, samanam's claims are refuted. No part of the thirukkuRaL can be interpretted where it contradicts the next.

//So we have to see what Thirukkural Devanar meant. Take a look at 27th kural where Parimelazhagar mentions 25 tattwas which are purely Vedic and Vaishnavite philosophy. How would you justify that from saivagama?//

You'll have to excuse my Tamil. Tamils in SA are unfortunate as those before my current generation failed to preserve the language. It is not my native language and I'm still studying. From what I gather, I have the gist that puruDan experiences the effects of maan (moola prakriti). In vainavam, moola prakriti is maal. In saivam, moola prakriti is not a thathuva but an aspect of impure maayai. What explanation then will you give to puruDan and the mention of the 7 thathuvas (vithya thathuvaas) which are beyond moola prakriti? The 25 that he mentions is puruDan and aanma thathuvaas; moola prakriti, which is an aspect of impure maayai, which results in the 24 aanma thathuvaas has seegaNDa paraman (rudhraa), Who is controlled by sivaperumaan, as its master. puruDan is not a seperate thathuva but, is considered the 7th of 7 vithya thathuvas. From impure maayai comes 'maayai', classified as the 1st vithya thathuva from which kaalam (time) comes. Then comes niyadhi (destiny) followed by kalai, vithai and araagam. When the soul is clad in these 5 vithya thathuvas (kaalam, niyadhi, kalai, vithai and araagam) it becomes know as puruDan. Thus, puruDan, or the 25th is a combination of 5 thathuvas, which makes the soul ready to experience the 24 effects (aanma thathuvaas) of maan. In saivaagamaas, there are 36 thathuvas. Above the vithya thathuvas, is sivathathuvas, which give rise to the world of speech and is controlled directly by sivaperumaan and is thus known as sutha maayai. Both sutha maayai and asutha maayai are effects of Causal Maayai. Therefore, the idea of thathuvas (instrumental existences), is saiva and pre-vedic.//To understand all these, one must know what Vedic polytheism says about One Brahman who has many manifestations. The one Brahman is Narayana who is the 'a-kaara' (agaram).//

What you call vedic polytheism is what is originally known as dhaandhaanmiyam. This is the inseparable relationship between sivan (One) and sathi (many). This is still monotheism as sathi is the inseparable Nature of sivan. There is no authentic support for siva being a manifestation of maal or vice versa. If maal was brammam, then saivam should not have been proven as the most ancient of Hindu sects. In addition, how many examples can you think of that has sivaperumaan worshipping maal or any other entity and compare it to the number of examples where you have maal and other entities, worshipping, prostrating and surrendering to sivaperumaan? agaram is infering the opening of the mouth, without which, there can be no agaram. This also refers to the gross manifestation of the universe with 'a' being the first part of 'ohm'. Agaram is used as the world of speech is an effect of the sivathathuvas, the first 5 instruments which make-up the universe. As sivaperumaan is the One Who Decides to join the soul (pasu) with causal maayai and causal kanmam, He is known as the first of the world, that is, not being the material cause, but the Efficient Cause, Who, out of Mercy for the souls, brought the universe into gross existence.

//The 10th kural speaks of surrendering to His feet which is not told for Shiva or any other God (who are actually manifestations of Brahman).//

'namachivaaya vaa_aZHga naadhanDRaaL vaaZHga'.

- maaNikkavaasaga naayanaar (3rd Century AD)

namachivaaya refers to siva, the transcendental Special nature of sivaperumaan and naadhanDRaaL, not only refers to the 1st thathvuva, naadham (siva), but, the Feet of sivaperumaan, is His sathi. It is in the Feet of sivaperumaan that everything exists and, as His sathi brings all into gross existence and pervades them, the Feet of sivaperumaan is symboli of sathi. Saivam is all about the Feet of sivaperumaan. Liberation is the soul being detached from the universe (paasam neekkam) and being attached to the Feet of sivaperumaan (sivapehru), by being merged in a subtle, non-dual inseparable union. This merging with the Feet of sivaperumaan is scattered throughout the thirumuRaygaL and saathirangaL. Correct me if I'm wrong but, is liberation in vaiNavam not considered to be more of a marriage? In saivam, the Feet are most 'obsessed' over as, eventually, we are 'slaves' to the Lord rather than an equal. Again, maaNikkavaasagar says, "neeLkaaZHgaL kaaTTi" - "You Revealed Your Omnipotent Feet". At the end of the sivapuraaNam, He says, "selvar sivapurathin wuLaar sivanaqDi keeZH pallohrum yehtha paNindhu" - thoßse (Who realise the meaning of these songs and chant them) will go to sivapuram (sivalohgam), which is situated at the bottom of sivaperumaan's Feet, where they will remain amongst the other liberated souls, as Slaves, and praise Him. So, the idea of the Feet of sivaperumaan, which are evetually, beyond all worlds, is the central focus of saivam. This is cemented by thirunaavukkarasar appar naayanaar where, when kailaasanaadhar appeared to Him, He (appar) said, "kaNDehn avar thirupaadham". If you look at pooZHiyarkohn, in praise of the naalvar, not only sivaperumaan's Feet are held in the highest regard, but the Feet of His Devotees.

//Wherever a description comes on a facet of Brahman which is known by a specific God, Parimelazhagar had mentioned that.//

The facets all mentioned in kaDavuL vaaZHthu are taught specially by saiva sithaandham and are attributed to sivaperumaan Himself. Yes, he would've mentioned aspects of god as per other religions, but, this will just be general. saiva sithaandham does not only focus on Its own philosophy, but goes indept into other philosophies as well.

//One who is knowledgeable in Vedic religion will not call oneself as saivite or vishnavite or a sakhtha and so on because such a person would know what each of these Gods mean and would find them as manifestations of Brahman which is established as Narayana by Vedas.//

The Vedas are not conclusive as to Who is God Head. I met a Vedic-saiva sithaandhan who was convinced that the Sanskrit Vedas were pure saiva sithaandham. The reason as to why there are different aagamaas to the same vedas is because it gives contradictory reasoning to God Head. For the manner in which brammam exists as celestials, like the trimoorthi, one must understand suthathuvidham. Why can one not say that brammam is parasivam? Do you not consider yourself vaiNavar?

//Thirukkural Devanaar (Thiruvalluvar)is one such knowledgeable person and uses the descriptions aptly. Parimelazahagar points them out aptly.//

If you look at the hand-gesture of thiruvaLLuva naayanaar's moorthi at kanyakumaari, how would you explain it from a vedic-vaiNava perspective?

Btw, I must thank you for giving me this chance to engage in a debate of this kind. As religious education isn't embraced in SA, when scholarly debate is engaged, the opposition turn to insults which is a waste of time. I've learnt a lot from this blog.

I think my first 5 questions require a simple yes or no and a line of explanation. At present, I'm studying sivanuyaana sithiyaar which will cover Hindu studies across the board and indept. I'm not disturbed by you asking me to do so. Maybe one day, through sivaperumaan's Grace, when I'm blessed with the kind of knowledge I will need, I will definitely read. Just to clarify, my primary objective is to completely grasp aagamic saivam.

There is no yes or no answers to your questions because all your questions were based on one facet of understanding of, say, the huge elephant which was explored by 6 blind people. It is like answering the questions raised by the one who understood the elephant as a long tubed animal, based on his exploration of the tusk alone.

You are into saivagama and therefore seeing whatever looks similar to the notions of saivagama. But know that saivagama is only a branch of the vast Vedantha - though what you are reading prohibits you from understanding or accepting that. As I didn't want to hurt your sentiments and instead wanted you to move ahead in your path of exploration, I am refraining from commenting any further.

A person goes through several stages and several births by exploring the nuances of the Wisdom which is enshrined in Vedas and which one catches up as one becomes more sattvic in disposition. A time will come when you will also reach that state. At that time you will realise that Thirukkural is dharma sastra of he Vedantic system of life. At that you will become a thinker by yourself and realise what each of the Godheads and their activities convey. Best wishes.

Yes, there is selective use of Thirukkural by the present day people who are mostly influenced by Dravidian ideology. I even had a person who swore by Thirukkiural, argue in my Tamil blog that eating non-veg is the cultural habit of Tamils for all along.

But the reality picture is that Tamils and Indians in general have been strict vegetarians until a century ago. John Phillip Wesdin, the Austrian traveler who traveled through India between 1776 to 1789 had written in his book "Voyages to the East Indies" that

"Their (Indians) total abstinence from all flesh, and the express prohibi¬tion of their religion which forbids them to kill animals, prevent them from dissecting them and examining their internal construction."

The Census Report of 1881 says "that Hindoos are almost completely vegetarians and that the Mahammedans are the butchers and the flesh eaters of the country". The Report even showed surprise that the so called fishermen (Shembadavas) did not reside near the sea but lived in-land and were engaged in other activities. The first culprit to have sown the seeds of difference among the Hindus in the name of caste are the Britishers. It was further refined by the Dravidian ideologues. It was only after they started to wield influence on the people of Tamilnadu, the ways of life even in eating habits were changed. Ask any Tamil on his ancestry, you will get a reply on how their grand parents were pious, religious and non-meat eaters.

Even looking at the temple inscriptions, one comes to know that every village lived as a compact system of unity among various people whose life centered around the temple. Such a life based around temple did not allow meat eating or other vices.

With all these, there are however a small percentage of people who had taken to meat eating and liquor. In a Paripaadal there is a mention of a few persons lying near the fields in inebriated condition. But that was not justified, nor accepted. Such people were not accepted by the people at large. The roots of untouchability started with that only. Those who killed cows were never allowed inside the village. Such a situation started only with the advent of the Mughals.

There are a couple of inscriptions which show leniency when a person had killed an animal unintentionally. They were asked to light the lamps everyday in the temple as a mode of prayaschiththa.

Killing any life, and eating other life were never promoted nor tolerated in India. The one who kills, the one who sells the killed animal and the one who eats - all these three get the negative effect for this killing. Of them the one who eats meat gets more of the negative effect (Paapam) because it is for him that the animal is killed primarily.

One may ask whether killing applies to eating vegetables too. This requires a detailed reply which I have already written in "athithi Bhojanam" article

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12914327/Athithi-devo-bhava

In short, no life is killed in eating vegetarian food. Only the stored up extra energy for the planet is used. Eating plant food is also necessary because the Atman enters through the plant food into a man's alimentary canal and get fixated in his sperm. As a prayaschiththa for whatever discomfort is caused to vegetable life, a man must pay back by watering the plants everyday.

Wow what a mess. Totally childish argument. Please read Nakkerer's Thirumurugattrupadai for Meat eating practice in Tamils land. Please read Tholkappium, Naladiyar about aram, porul and inbam. Earlier I did refer to your blog for some good input. But this one, I can tell it is a total childish work...